₦airaland Forum

'Child-witches' of Nigeria seek refuge


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/3407882/Child-witches-of-Nigeria-seek-refuge.html

Mary is a pretty five-year-old girl with big brown eyes and a father who kicked her out onto the streets in one of the most dangerous parts of the world. Her crime: the local priest had denounced her as a witch and blamed her "evil powers" for causing her mother's death.

Ostracised, vulnerable and frightened, she wandered the streets in south-eastern Nigeria, sleeping rough, struggling to stay alive.

Mary was found by a British charity worker and today lives at a refuge in Akwa Ibom province with 150 other children who have been branded witches, blamed for all their family's woes, and abandoned. Before being pushed out of their homes many were beaten or slashed with knives, thrown onto fires, or had acid poured over them as a punishment or in an attempt to make them "confess" to being possessed. In one horrific case, a young girl called Uma had a three-inch nail driven into her skull.

Yet Mary and the others at the shelter are the lucky ones for they, at least, are alive. Many of those branded "child-witches" are murdered - hacked to death with machetes, poisoned, drowned, or buried alive in an attempt to drive Satan out of their soul.

The devil's children are "identified" by powerful religious leaders at extremist churches where Christianity and traditional beliefs have combined to produce a deep-rooted belief in, and fear of, witchcraft. The priests spread the message that child-witches bring destruction, disease and death to their families. And they say that, once possessed, children can cast spells and contaminate others.

The religious leaders offer help to the families whose children are named as witches, but at a price. The churches run exorcism, or "deliverance", evenings where the pastors attempt to drive out the evil spirits. Only they have the power to cleanse the child of evil spirits, they say. The exorcism costs the families up to a year's income.

During the "deliverance" ceremonies, the children are shaken violently, dragged around the room and have potions poured into their eyes. The children look terrified. The parents look on, praying that the child will be cleansed. If the ritual fails, they know their children will have to be sent away, or killed. Many are held in churches, often on chains, and deprived of food until they "confess" to being a witch.

The ceremonies are highly lucrative for the spiritual leaders many of whom enjoy a lifestyle of large homes, expensive cars and designer clothes.

Ten years ago there were few cases of children stigmatised by witchcraft. But since then the numbers have grown at an alarming rate and have reached an estimated 15,000 in Akwa Ibom state alone.

Some Nigerians blame the increase on one of the country's wealthiest and most influential evangelical preachers. Helen Ukpabio, a self-styled prophetess of the 150-branch Liberty Gospel Church, made a film, widely distributed, called End of the Wicked. It tells, in graphic detail, how children become possessed and shows them being inducted into covens, eating human flesh and bringing chaos and death to their families and communities.

Mrs Ukpabio, a mother of three, also wrote a popular book which tells parents how to identify a witch. For children under two years old, she says, the key signs of a servant of Satan are crying and screaming in the night, high fever and worsening health - symptoms that can be found among many children in an impoverished region with poor health care.

The preacher says that her work is true to the Bible and is a means of spreading God's word. "Witchcraft is a problem all over Nigeria and someone with a gift like me can never hurt anybody," she says. "Every Nigerian wants to watch my movies." She denies that her teachings and films could encourage child abuse.

One British charity worker is fighting to help the children stigmatised as witches. Gary Foxcroft, 29, programme director for the UK charity Stepping Stones, Nigeria, first came to the country in 2003 to research the oil industry for his masters degree. But he was so shocked when he learned about the children's plight that he decided to help raise money for the refuge - the Child Rights and Rehabilitation Network (Crarn) - and try to persuade the parents to take their children back. He has also helped to build a school for the children who are refused places at local schools.

"Any Christian would look at the situation that is going on here and just be absolutely outraged that they were using the teachings of Jesus Christ to exploit and abuse innocent children," says Mr Foxcroft whose expose of what he describes as "an absolute scandal" will be screened in a Channel 4 documentary on Wednesday.

The Niger Delta is an oil-rich region but the wealth does not reach the people who live there. The locals blame their hardship on the Devil but international analysts point to the oil industry's large-scale contamination of air, land and sea.

In the documentary, the charity worker visits one of the pastors, a man who calls himself "the Bishop" and who claims to be able to drive evil spirits out of "possessed" children. At his church in Ibaka, the Bishop pours a homemade substance called African mercury, a potion of pure alcohol and his own blood, into the eyes of a young boy lying on a table. "I want this poison destroyer to destroy the witch right now, in Jesus' name," he says.

The priest charges £170 - in a country where millions of people are forced to live on less than £1 a day - for "treating" a child every night for two weeks, and holds them captive until the bill is paid.

He has recently refined his techniques for dealing with child witches. "I killed up to 110 people who were identified as being a witch," he says. He claims there are 2.3million "witches and wizards" in Akwa Ibom province alone.

The children's shelter was started five years ago when Sam Itauma, a Nigerian, opened his house to four youngsters accused of witchcraft. Today, he and his five staff are caring for 150 youngsters. "Every day, five or six children are branded as witches," he says "Once a child has been stigmatised as a witch, it is very difficult for someone to accept that child back. If they go out from this community, there is a lot of attacks, assault and abuses on the children." Children often arrive at the shelter with severe wounds, but few clinics or hospitals will treat a child believed to be a witch.

"Christianity in the Niger Delta is seriously questionable, putting a traditional religion together with Christian religion - and it makes nonsense out of it," he says. "If you are not rich and don't have anything to eat, you look to blame someone. And if you don't get anything, you blame it on the witches."

Christians have been in Nigeria since the 19th century and the Niger Delta area claims to have more churches per square mile than any other place on Earth. The vast majority of the country's 60 million Christians are moderate, but an influx of Pentecostals over the past 50 years has led some churches to be dominated by extremist views. Five years ago, the Nigerian government passed a Child Rights Act, which made abuse illegal, but not every state has adopted it.

At the refuge, a baby girl called Utibe and her five-year-old sister, Utitofong, are dumped at the gate by their mother because a "prophet" told her that Utitofong was a witch and had passed the spell to her sister. The mother, who spent four months' salary on an unsuccessful exorcism, left them at the centre because she feared they would be killed. The police are called but locals offer them no help.

Mr Itauma goes to the village to try and convince the locals to accept the daughters' return, but the older girl is threatened by a man with a machete. "Get away from our food - I'll kill you," he shouts. Utibe is allowed to stay, but the older girl has to go back to the refuge.

At the end of the film, Mr Foxcroft and all the "child-witches" stage a demonstration at the Governor's residence in the state capital, Uyo, and urge him to adopt the Child Rights Act." After four hours the Governor comes out and says the Act will be adopted. It has since been adopted, but so far not a single pastor has been convicted of any offence. And the rescue centre still takes in up to 10 children a week.

Mr Foxcroft took Mary back to her village where he was told that her father left a year ago to find work in Cameroon. A cousin says: "She is a witch, we don't want her here." Mary is now back at the refuge.

- Dispatches Special: Saving Africa's Witch Children will be shown on Channel 4 on Wednesday, 12 November, at 9pm

'Child-witches' of Nigeria seek refuge
by Telegraph


Reposted from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/3407882/Child-witches-of-Nigeria-seek-refuge.html

Mary is a pretty five-year-old girl with big brown eyes and a father who kicked her out onto the streets in one of the most dangerous parts of the world. Her crime: the local priest had denounced her as a witch and blamed her "evil powers" for causing her mother's death.

Ostracised, vulnerable and frightened, she wandered the streets in south-eastern Nigeria, sleeping rough, struggling to stay alive.

Mary was found by a British charity worker and today lives at a refuge in Akwa Ibom province with 150 other children who have been branded witches, blamed for all their family's woes, and abandoned. Before being pushed out of their homes many were beaten or slashed with knives, thrown onto fires, or had acid poured over them as a punishment or in an attempt to make them "confess" to being possessed. In one horrific case, a young girl called Uma had a three-inch nail driven into her skull.

Yet Mary and the others at the shelter are the lucky ones for they, at least, are alive. Many of those branded "child-witches" are murdered - hacked to death with machetes, poisoned, drowned, or buried alive in an attempt to drive Satan out of their soul.

The devil's children are "identified" by powerful religious leaders at extremist churches where Christianity and traditional beliefs have combined to produce a deep-rooted belief in, and fear of, witchcraft. The priests spread the message that child-witches bring destruction, disease and death to their families. And they say that, once possessed, children can cast spells and contaminate others.

The religious leaders offer help to the families whose children are named as witches, but at a price. The churches run exorcism, or "deliverance", evenings where the pastors attempt to drive out the evil spirits. Only they have the power to cleanse the child of evil spirits, they say. The exorcism costs the families up to a year's income.

During the "deliverance" ceremonies, the children are shaken violently, dragged around the room and have potions poured into their eyes. The children look terrified. The parents look on, praying that the child will be cleansed. If the ritual fails, they know their children will have to be sent away, or killed. Many are held in churches, often on chains, and deprived of food until they "confess" to being a witch.

The ceremonies are highly lucrative for the spiritual leaders many of whom enjoy a lifestyle of large homes, expensive cars and designer clothes.

Ten years ago there were few cases of children stigmatised by witchcraft. But since then the numbers have grown at an alarming rate and have reached an estimated 15,000 in Akwa Ibom state alone.

Some Nigerians blame the increase on one of the country's wealthiest and most influential evangelical preachers. Helen Ukpabio, a self-styled prophetess of the 150-branch Liberty Gospel Church, made a film, widely distributed, called End of the Wicked. It tells, in graphic detail, how children become possessed and shows them being inducted into covens, eating human flesh and bringing chaos and death to their families and communities.

Mrs Ukpabio, a mother of three, also wrote a popular book which tells parents how to identify a witch. For children under two years old, she says, the key signs of a servant of Satan are crying and screaming in the night, high fever and worsening health - symptoms that can be found among many children in an impoverished region with poor health care.

The preacher says that her work is true to the Bible and is a means of spreading God's word. "Witchcraft is a problem all over Nigeria and someone with a gift like me can never hurt anybody," she says. "Every Nigerian wants to watch my movies." She denies that her teachings and films could encourage child abuse.

One British charity worker is fighting to help the children stigmatised as witches. Gary Foxcroft, 29, programme director for the UK charity Stepping Stones, Nigeria, first came to the country in 2003 to research the oil industry for his masters degree. But he was so shocked when he learned about the children's plight that he decided to help raise money for the refuge - the Child Rights and Rehabilitation Network (Crarn) - and try to persuade the parents to take their children back. He has also helped to build a school for the children who are refused places at local schools.

"Any Christian would look at the situation that is going on here and just be absolutely outraged that they were using the teachings of Jesus Christ to exploit and abuse innocent children," says Mr Foxcroft whose expose of what he describes as "an absolute scandal" will be screened in a Channel 4 documentary on Wednesday.

The Niger Delta is an oil-rich region but the wealth does not reach the people who live there. The locals blame their hardship on the Devil but international analysts point to the oil industry's large-scale contamination of air, land and sea.

In the documentary, the charity worker visits one of the pastors, a man who calls himself "the Bishop" and who claims to be able to drive evil spirits out of "possessed" children. At his church in Ibaka, the Bishop pours a homemade substance called African mercury, a potion of pure alcohol and his own blood, into the eyes of a young boy lying on a table. "I want this poison destroyer to destroy the witch right now, in Jesus' name," he says.

The priest charges £170 - in a country where millions of people are forced to live on less than £1 a day - for "treating" a child every night for two weeks, and holds them captive until the bill is paid.

He has recently refined his techniques for dealing with child witches. "I killed up to 110 people who were identified as being a witch," he says. He claims there are 2.3million "witches and wizards" in Akwa Ibom province alone.

The children's shelter was started five years ago when Sam Itauma, a Nigerian, opened his house to four youngsters accused of witchcraft. Today, he and his five staff are caring for 150 youngsters. "Every day, five or six children are branded as witches," he says "Once a child has been stigmatised as a witch, it is very difficult for someone to accept that child back. If they go out from this community, there is a lot of attacks, assault and abuses on the children." Children often arrive at the shelter with severe wounds, but few clinics or hospitals will treat a child believed to be a witch.

"Christianity in the Niger Delta is seriously questionable, putting a traditional religion together with Christian religion - and it makes nonsense out of it," he says. "If you are not rich and don't have anything to eat, you look to blame someone. And if you don't get anything, you blame it on the witches."

Christians have been in Nigeria since the 19th century and the Niger Delta area claims to have more churches per square mile than any other place on Earth. The vast majority of the country's 60 million Christians are moderate, but an influx of Pentecostals over the past 50 years has led some churches to be dominated by extremist views. Five years ago, the Nigerian government passed a Child Rights Act, which made abuse illegal, but not every state has adopted it.

At the refuge, a baby girl called Utibe and her five-year-old sister, Utitofong, are dumped at the gate by their mother because a "prophet" told her that Utitofong was a witch and had passed the spell to her sister. The mother, who spent four months' salary on an unsuccessful exorcism, left them at the centre because she feared they would be killed. The police are called but locals offer them no help.

Mr Itauma goes to the village to try and convince the locals to accept the daughters' return, but the older girl is threatened by a man with a machete. "Get away from our food - I'll kill you," he shouts. Utibe is allowed to stay, but the older girl has to go back to the refuge.

At the end of the film, Mr Foxcroft and all the "child-witches" stage a demonstration at the Governor's residence in the state capital, Uyo, and urge him to adopt the Child Rights Act." After four hours the Governor comes out and says the Act will be adopted. It has since been adopted, but so far not a single pastor has been convicted of any offence. And the rescue centre still takes in up to 10 children a week.

Mr Foxcroft took Mary back to her village where he was told that her father left a year ago to find work in Cameroon. A cousin says: "She is a witch, we don't want her here." Mary is now back at the refuge.

- Dispatches Special: Saving Africa's Witch Children will be shown on Channel 4 on Wednesday, 12 November, at 9pm

olabowale:
@M_nwankwo: When I read your assertion that Jesus is son of God, am always amazed by it. Please could you give a good intellectual argument how you arrived at this? I read above how you derided Olaadegbu that his argument is what he heard from his "local Church" which he is passing up as creation, instead of healing.

While I agree with you that there is a difference between creation anew, which is what I as a creationsit believe, even though all created things have a set of commn elements, from which they are created. These common element are mainly soil/earth and water, but each creatd thing have a different formular or composition agregates of each, hence it is no surprise that you will find commonality of elemental compositions between two opposite created things. For example you have persuaded us with your argument that;

1. That the human chromosome 2 came about as a result of telomeric fusion of two ape chromosomes and the presense of a vestigial centromere in human chromosome 2.
2. The presence of pseudo genes in humans whereas these genes are active and in the same location/orientation in the genome of apes and some other mammals like dogs.
3 Identical retroviral DNA sequences in the genome of human and chimps.

Since all of these three above and much more are true, can you then argue that man, Chimp, dog, etc are exactly alike? If you can not, then it may be better for you to look at their unique differences and realise that it is the differences that may point to creation instead of evolution.

One thing I will give you though, unlike the atheist or agnostic, is that you do believe in One God, even though your own god has a son, since you believe that Jesusis his son. My question to you then is this, if Jesus and his father, your god could not create anything, but things evolved anyhow, what is the purpose of either one of them? And do you see a reason for a religion, or obedience to a God and definitely, is there a day of Judgement in your future?

Why do any good, except as a humanist, since you do not see the value for a god, an obedience to this god through a religion and a day of Judgement? What things evolved from, the very original thing that evolution start with, who created it or how did it come to existence, if there is no GOd who created it, in the first place and gave it the evolutionary elemental changes to take place in its right time, if I am to go by your argument?

Finally, my simple observation of your argument against Olaadegbu, even though I am not a christian, and do not believe in a God with a son, rather a God who is uniquely independent and separate from what i call created, and Jesus happen to be a created in my own view, aren't your argument from a local church source, which is hat "Grail Message" is to me? And long time before Grail Message, just as before (Muhammad and Jesus and Moses, (as)), there were knowledge about God, and no knowledge about a son of god. Or can anyone bring out any from Adam or his wife or children?

If you accept those three points as being true, what implication does that have for your understanding of life? Surely it must mean that at some point there were NO humans and that humans and the near descendants are the offsprings of close relatives to chimps.

So your god created the human lineage from common relative of chimps and humans? What else can those three points imply?

OLAADEGBU:
There you go again, the evolutionists tactics of diverting attention from addressing the questions at hand, especially when they have no clues. Resorting to name-calling and attacking the person instead of the argument. I am not surprised, since your religion of humanism does not subscribe to any moral absolutes, it is therefore no wonder why the use of ridicule and ad hominems to an evolutionist are like the use of water to a fish. The difference with biblical creationists is that we have a God who was present to observe the creation of His works and who has given a recorded account of how it was done and He has handed this record, that is, the big picture over to those who will believe Him to have the revelation knowledge of these. He has also given us the decalogue as His standard of moral living that guides us by by His grace. He has not only cleansed me by His Words but has also washed my heart by His blood in order to have fellowship, communion, connection and a relationship with Him.

This is another diversionary tactic, that prevents you from answering my questions, starting from the first post of this thread. Instead of you attempting to answer the myriads of questions that I have posted all you do is to attack the person asking the question and to ask your own question with the intention of diverting the issue at hand.

If you want me to answer your question, since you have asked this same question on two different ocassions you will first of all answer this simple question. Are dinosaurs extinct? A yes or no will do.

Yes, ABSOLUTELY, dinosaurs are extinct. (but their descendants live on as birds)

For his time Darwin was quite advance in the way he viewed the human "races", even more so that many of the theologians of his generation.  He was strongly opposed to the slave trade and showed great respect when dealing with Africans.  In fact, he writes fondly of an African taxidermist in Scotland that he had the pleasure of meeting.   This article gives a thorough exposition of Darwin's position.

I think compared to today, the standard of behaviour have advanced, but Darwin personally was well advanced for his time.

I agree, whatever his private beliefs, politics, etc were, none of these are determinants on the truth or otherwise of the theory of evolution by natural selection.



=============================================================================


Darwin's Views on Slavery and Africans
Slavery existed long before Darwin, and America's race based slave system was well entrenched before Darwin was even born. Darwin was a member of several abolitionist organizations and he wrote frequently about the injustices of slavery. Darwin also defended the intelligence of Africans and other non-whites on several occasions.

I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; -- nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the houses of the upper classes, where the domestic slaves are usually well treated, and they have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull, who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master's ears.

,

It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children -- those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own -- being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty:
- The Voyage of the Beagle; Charles Darwin, 1839

In a letter to Thomas Wentworth Higginson, who formed and led the first black regiment in the American Civil War, Darwin wrote:

My wife has just finished reading aloud your 'Life with a Black Regiment,' and you must allow me to thank you heartily for the very great pleasure which it has in many ways given us. I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed. When you were here I did not know of the noble position which you had filled. I had formerly read about the black regiments, but failed to connect your name with your admirable undertaking. Although we enjoyed greatly your visit to Down, my wife and myself have over and over again regretted that we did not know about the black regiment, as we should have greatly liked to have heard a little about the South from your own lips.

Your descriptions have vividly recalled walks taken forty years ago in Brazil. We have your collected Essays, which were kindly sent us by Mr. Conway, but have not yet had time to read them. I occasionally glean a little news of you in the 'Index'; and within the last hour have read an interesting article of yours on the progress of Free Thought.
- Letter from Darwin to Thomas Higginson,  February 27, 1873

While on the voyage of the HMS Beagle Darwin wrote:

I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place.
- Letter from Darwin to J.S. Henslo, March 1834

In Haiti the African slaves rebelled and formed their own democratic government in 1803. For Darwin to have endorsed the idea of negro slaves rebelling and taking control of countries is quite extraordinary and was definitely an extreme minority position among Europeans.

When Darwin was eighteen he recorded his acquaintances with a black man in the UK, whom he had spent time with. His notes were later published in his autobiography.

By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently: he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man.
- Charles Darwin; The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887


In the autobiographical chapter of The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Darwin recalled the following about the conflicts that arose during his voyage on the HMS Beagle over the issue of slavery.

Fitz-Roy's temper was a most unfortunate one. It was usually worst in the early morning, and with his eagle eye he could generally detect something amiss about the ship, and was then unsparing in his blame. He was very kind to me, but was a man very difficult to live with on the intimate terms which necessarily followed from our messing by ourselves in the same cabin. We had several quarrels; for instance, early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered "No." I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything? This made him excessively angry, and he said that as I doubted his word we could not live any longer together. I thought that I should have been compelled to leave the ship; but as soon as the news spread, which it did quickly, as the captain sent for the first lieutenant to assuage his anger by abusing me, I was deeply gratified by receiving an invitation from all the gun-room officers to mess with them. But after a few hours Fitz-Roy showed his usual magnanimity by sending an officer to me with an apology and a request that I would continue to live with him.
- Charles Darwin; The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887

With all of this, however, opponents of evolution would have us believe that Darwin and evolutionary theory are responsible, at least in part, for the racism of the early 20th century. Yet 20th century racism was strongest in America in the South, where evolution was least accepted and barely even taught. The Ku Klux Klan, which reached its height in the 1920s, was both the leading institution of violent racism and also an opponent of evolution.

OLAADEGBU:
My God is not an European God, He is the uncreated Creator of the whole universe and heaven even including you. Does you point not show an example of a pot calling a kettle black or is it calling a dog a bad name so as to hang it. The so called Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Plato were not particularly Africans,no? If not why do you follow their convoluted theories because they are Europeans or Jews? At least Albert Einstein was wise enough to acknowledge that he was trying to follow God's thoughts in creation after Him, while Plato rightly predicted that "if ever a righteous person ever lived that he will be crucified", but Charles Darwin has been found out to be a fraud.

He never apologised nor gave credit to several other people who formulated the theory of natural selection, especially a creationist by the name Edward Blyth who published several articles describing the process of natural selection in Magazine of Natural History between 1835 and 1837 which was a full 22 years before Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species. It was also discovered that Darwin had copies of the magazines he plagiarized and that part of his book are nearly copied verbatim from Blyth's articles. The only difference with Blyth was that he was a believer in God and believed that God created original kinds and that all modern species descended from those kinds, and that natural selection acted by conserving rather than originating. Blyth also believed that man was a separate creation from animals. (Gen.1:27).

I am not ashamed to be a believer in the Eternal, uncreated, infinite Creator. But tell me does that mean that the culture, language and so called European personalities of your evolutionist heroes are now African? Since they are not African why do you swallow their conjectures hook, line and sinker? An apologetic means someone who defends his faith without apologising so can you explain what you mean by being an unapologetic Evolutionist? I understand what your heroes mean by survival of the fittest, but do you know that your so called champion of Evolution, Charles Darwin, is a racist and a male chauvinist who's followers would not hesitate to eliminate the weak Africans so as to survive? that they believe that Caucasians are more evolved than Africans? That Hitler and the communist regimes used this same theory of the survival of the fittest to eliminate millions around the world? And here you are condemning biblical creationists who teach and believe that God created man equally in His own image.

This level of bone-skull ignorance is actually dangerous in civilised society. I can only put this down to the reasoning faculty having been damaged by religious indoctrination. If you think my accusations are unjustified answer this one question:

1) Why are there no fossils of rabbit in the pre-cambrians?

I will retract my accusation unreservedly if you so much as come close to a theory that answers the question.

pilgrim.1:
There is no brain trick that explains why several witnesses see the same effect of invisible forces attacking people.

Pilgrim, how are ya?

I thought this was an interesting way to phrase this statement. Allow me to probe a little bit into this, if you may.

I am really interested in three entities here - the witnesses, the invisible forces, and the effects of these forces.

The witnesses. What did they see? Did they see the forces or the effects of the forces? If they saw the effects of the invisible forces, how could they have known that these tangible effects were caused by invisible force.

Supposing the victim was suffering from some neurological condition that caused involuntary muscle spasms, fits, etc. How would this be distinguishable from the effects of "invisible forces"?

Are the witnesses discerning enough to make reliable "diagnosis" of the victims plight?

Invisible forces. What do you mean by forces here? If you meant it in the scientific/engineering sense (such as gravity, electromagnetism, etc), then most such forces are invisible anyway, but the cause of the force may not be. If you meant it in the spiritual or metaphorical sense, I thought these are usually invisible anyway.

The effects. What really were these effects? Would they be things like fits, muscle spasms, uncontrollable use of invectives, etc, etc? Are any of these known to be caused only by "invisible forces"? Could all or some of these be explained by well known naturalistic means?

If any one gets an opportunity, they should listen to Professor Vilayanur S. Ramachandran explain how our brain plays tricks and havoc to us.

Some of his lectures are here

Fred Phelps's son is an atheist: Running from hell
by Trevor Melanson

Reposted from:
http://www.ubyssey.ca/?p=5624

GROWING UP IN AMERICA’S MOST HATED FAMILY

The mattock, a close cousin of the pickaxe, is used to dig through tough, earthy surfaces—it loosens soil, breaks rock, and tears through knotted grass. Its handle is a three-foot wooden shaft, twice the density of a baseball bat and its dual-sided iron head is comprised of a chisel and a pick. It was Pastor Fred Phelps’s weapon of choice when beating his children according to his son, Nate Phelps.

“The Bible says ‘spare the rod, spoil the child,’” explained Nate, “and he would be screaming that out as he was beating us.” One Christmas night, Pastor Phelps hit Nate over 200 times with a mattock’s handle, swinging it like a baseball player.

Nate would hide out in the garage with his siblings, where he could escape his father’s wrath. What he couldn’t escape, however, was the fear of going to hell. He suffered much abuse growing up under the roof of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church (WBC)—he still suffers today.

The church, which believes that “God is hateful,” hasn’t changed its grim outlook since Nate’s time there 30 years ago, but it has expanded its fame. WBC has become well known for picketing funerals, where its followers, predominantly Phelps family members, proclaim that God is punishing “gays and gay enablers.” To further the damage, the church frequently targets military funerals.

“WBC will picket the funerals of these Godless, gay army American soldiers when their pieces return home,” their website says. They believe God is punishing America for facilitating homosexuality, which, according to the church, ought to be a capital crime.

More recently, WBC planned to protest the funeral of Tim McLean, the young man who was beheaded on a Greyhound bus. However, they were barred from crossing the Canadian border. It is little wonder that Louis Theroux’s BBC documentary on the Phelps’ was titled The Most Hated Family in America.

Incidentally, it was when I mentioned this documentary that Nate introduced himself to me.

It was a Monday in September and I was on my way to the Cranbrook Airport. Cranbrook, a modest city of about 25,000, hides in BC’s Kootenays. It rests behind a shroud of mountains, clean air, and restful silence.

I began a conversation with my cab driver, who looked to be in his late forties, with a trimmed beard and kind eyes. He told me that he once owned a chain of print shops with his brother, that he liked the BBC, and that Pastor Fred Phelps was his father—only after I had mentioned WBC, unaware. Following this coincidence, he agreed to an interview.

Nate’s story tells of the “shadow—the dark, ugly thing at the back of their minds.” The fear of burning in hell never goes away, said Nate, who is still struggling with it himself. “It’s destructive. It’s hard to live life with that stuff in your head.” But he’s doing his best.

His conditioning began over 40 years ago in Topeka, Kansas, where WBC was formed and still exists today. As its pastor, his father very quickly alienated himself from most of the people who had seeded the church.

“A young lady got pregnant by a solider at Fort Riley,” explained Nate, “and [my father’s] response to that was to kick her out of the church…and that sent most of the people packing. There was already that siege mentality developing: us against the world.”

Sundays were particularly strict. Nate was expected to dress formally and present himself in the church auditorium by a certain time. The sermon that followed was always “fire-and-brimstone preaching.”

“I know that very early on [my father] was under the influence of those drugs,” Nate said. Pastor Phelps was attending law school and would take amphetamines to stay awake and barbiturates to come down. “It spiralled out of control [and he] was prone toward violence….He just wasn’t tolerant toward the presence of all of us kids running around—and the accompanying noise….He would beat the kids with his fists and kick them and knee them in the stomach.”

Nate doesn’t know why his father was such an angry man; he didn’t know his father very well. “I just know that that’s the way he was and I stayed as far away from him as I could.”

He remembers when his father would force him and his siblings to run five to ten miles around the high school track every night. One evening another boy was riding his bicycle along the outer lanes of the track, and Fred began yelling at him to leave. The boy’s response was to keep riding on the track, and Fred’s was to push him off the bike. The boy left, screaming, and 20 minutes later a truck came screeching into the parking lot. The boy had brought his father, who approached Fred and knocked him to the ground.

“The man was threatening to sue him,” said Nate. “Then my old man yelled at us all to get in the car and we went home, and [my father] ended up beating my mom that night.”

Nate left home the day he turned 18. For a while he worked for a lawyer in Kansas City, eventually moving to St. Louis to work for a printing company with his brother Mark. He and Mark opened up their own print shop soon after. But then, after three years and despite his brother’s disapproval, Nate returned home.

“My sisters were trying to convince me that things had changed….I attended college for a semester and realized that while he may have been less prone to physical violence, he still was the same person. He just used different techniques to violate people—with his words and his deeds.”

In October of 1980, Nate left for good. He found residence above a Volkswagen repair shop, where he went through about six months in a drug and alcohol haze. He eventually ran into Mark’s wife and she suggested that he and his brother reconcile their animosity, which had been caused when Nate returned to WBC temporarily. And so Nate moved to California to work with his brother again.

Late one night over a decade later, Nate found himself listening to his father being interviewed on a radio station in LA—it wasn’t long after Fred had gained national attention with his protests. Nate called in under the impression that the interview was a rerun, but realized after calling that his father was on the air live.

“I was freaked out. I got on and I challenged [my father]….That lasted about maybe a minute, and it devolved quickly into him calling me every name he could imagine, and then he handed the phone to Shirley, and she delivered a few diatribes.”

Shirley Phelps-Roper, Nate’s sister, has gained her own reputation for being the church’s other loud voice. Nate says that she has always been their father’s favourite. I contacted her to ask about her brother, and she responded with the following.

“Nathan Phelps is a rebel against God,” she said. “He has nothing to look forward to except sorrow, misery, death and hell….Great peace fell upon our house when Nathan left….He spit on the goodness of his mother and father. In spite of that, his father and mother loved him and did their duty to him…and required of him that he behave while he lived in their house. They loved him in the only way that the Lord God defines love! They told him the truth about what the Lord his God required of him. He was not going to have that!”

Shirley also claimed that Nate “left when he was a raging disobedient rebel with selective memory,” and asked, “What in this world is he doing in Canada?”

Nate met his ex-wife in ’81, married in ’86. They had three children together and he helped raise a fourth. They moved to a new, pre-planned city, Rancho Santa Margarita, nestled at the foot of Saddleback Mountain in California.

“It was like paradise,” Nate said. “It was a perfect little town, and we were young and starting a family. It all just seemed so ideal.”

They joined a church, where they met many other families, five of which they became close with.

“Every Sunday, I was listening closely and trying desperately to find something in the preaching or in the words that would convince me that this was right. Even while I was doing that, I was always skeptical…but I never voiced it. I was very good at playing the apologist for the Christian faith. In fact, I had quite a reputation for writing and talking in defence of Christianity.”

The turning point was one Christmas, when Nate decided to teach his children about God. In the end, his son Tyler began crying in the backseat of the car, saying that he didn’t want to go to hell.

“He wanted to believe because he didn’t want to go to hell,” Nate said. “I was just stunned because I didn’t know what I had said or how I had left him with that fear. I thought I was doing a good job of presenting it without the fear.

“Thinking about it after the fact, I realized you can’t do that. With a young mind it doesn’t matter. You can try as much as you want to talk about how good God is, but the bottom line is there’s this intolerably frightening punishment if you don’t accept it. And how does a young mind deal with that?”

Nate agrees with prominent atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins, who has said that religion can be “real child abuse.”

Dawkins tells the story of an American woman who wrote to him. She was raised as a Roman Catholic and was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. Around the same time, a Protestant school friend of hers died tragically.

“Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a seven-year-old) as yucky,” she wrote, “while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest, but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to hell. It gave me nightmares.”

“The threat of eternal Hell is an extreme example of mental abuse,” Dawkins says on his website, “just as violent sodomy is an extreme example of physical abuse.”

“I couldn’t agree more,” asserted Nate. “In so many different ways we have abused children with religion over the centuries.”

Nate said that he is being contacted by nephews he’d never previously met who have made the same choice he did 30 years ago. One of them was Tim, who told Nate that he spends many nights crying himself to sleep. He’s scared. “Once he made the choice, he’s cut off. Everything that he grew up with is taken away from him, and he gets to wonder if he’s going to burn in hell….[He’s] living with that shadow.”

Eventually, Nate told his wife that he couldn’t continue believing. Then he told the men from the five families that they were close to, and they responded by disappearing from his life.

“As far as they were concerned, I was a traitor—well, that’s how they behaved.”

In 2005, Nate’s marriage failed. Around the same time, he met another woman online, Angela. She lived in Canada, and Nate knew that he had to make a tough decision.

“The decision was that I was going to come here to her,” Nate said. “When I left, one of the first things [my wife] did was blame the failed marriage on us leaving the church.”

He moved to Cranbrook in December of ’05. Since then, he’s been doing a lot of reading and thinking.

“I do declare myself an atheist now,” affirmed Nate, “although I’m willing to admit that there’s stuff in life that I’m not real clear on yet.”

Despite this, he still lives with anxiety caused by his experiences over 40 years ago.

“I spent the first 25 or 30 years of my life denying that anything was wrong with me….Then bam: all this weird stuff just starts coming out.

“It’s so, so difficult to go back and look at stuff and try to make sense of it, especially being this far removed from it. I’ll immerse myself in it for a couple weeks, and then I got to back away because it’s too destructive. But I have to believe it’s going to turn out.”

I asked Nate what he wanted for his future.

“I think the best way to answer that is what I said to my wife when we were fighting at the end.” He paused for a moment. “That I just want peace. I want to not wake up fearful every morning.”

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,
It is debatable between naturalists what the position and relationship is between MN and science: that is basically because up until now some scientists are not agreed what exactly is the foundation of science.

Well said and I can't argue with that and a good point to draw the line. Only wished we had had a separated thread for this very interesting discussion. I must admit, I have really enjoyed it and am glad you were engaged caused it made be revist some stuff I had not looked at in years.

Thanks and Regards.

Pilgrim,  Can I draw you attention to the very last paragraph of Barbara Forrest's article:

Science, because of its reliance upon methodological naturalism, lends no support to belief in the supernatural. Consequently, philosophical naturalism, because of its own grounding in methodological naturalism, has no room for it either. While for the supernaturalist, this absence may be the chief complaint against both science and methodological naturalism, for the philosophical naturalist, it is the source of the greatest confidence in both.

I know she may have implied the relationship was the other way round, I think this conclusion tells it all.  I don't like the word "rely" in this context, because it might give the impression that MN is the sole foundational approach of science.

In fact, the article REPLACING METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM is a very interesting read.  And the title is also quite interest.

Why would Robert A. Delfino be arguing for replacing MN?  In fact, why is he interested in MN at all?  Replacing MN from where?

Let us look at the first few paragraphs of the article:

Richard Dawkins, during a recent interview about his new book, The God Delusion, proclaimed “[T]he big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism.”1 I agree with Dawkins to the extent that naturalism, whether we are talking about metaphysical naturalism or methodological naturalism, is one of the primary barriers to fruitful dialogue between science and religion and to the interdisciplinary synthesis of knowledge in general. This is because naturalism seems to prevent scientific discussion of many important topics, including: human freedom, morality, purpose in nature, and God.

Although this problem is not new, Alvin Plantinga discussed it in some detail ten years ago in an article titled Methodological Naturalism?, it has not been resolved and it has not gone away.2 The recent battles over supernatural causation and the definition of science, as seen in the case of the Kansas Board of Education and in the District Court case in Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller v. Dover, are evidence of this.3 In addition, as if to add fuel to the fire, some scientists are now openly calling for attacks on religion and the supernatural. For example, at a recent conference on science and religion called Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival, which was held at the Salk Institute in California, Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, said “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”4 In The God Delusion, Dawkins is clear that anything supernatural is the object of his attack: “I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.”5

The time is ripe, then, to revisit the issue of naturalism. In this paper I focus on methodological naturalism with the goal of demonstrating why the scientific community should abandon it and replace it with a new methodological principle. I accomplish this by performing four tasks. First, I analyze different formulations and justifications of methodological naturalism that have been put forth by scientists and philosophers of science. Second, I show how all of these formulations and justifications have serious problems and therefore the principle of methodological naturalism should be abandoned. Third, I argue that a new methodological principle needs to take its place. I propose and defend such a principle, which I call the principle of methodological neutralism, with two goals in mind. The first goal is that it will be acceptable to the scientific, religious, and philosophical communities. The second goal is that it will allow for greater dialogue (or at least the possibility of greater dialogue) between science and religion and for greater interdisciplinary synthesis in general. Fourth, and finally, I reply to some objections that might be raised against my view.

Before we can move to our first task, we must clarify briefly what naturalism is. Naturalism is a metaphysical view that denies the existence of supernatural entities. Usually this view amounts to a kind of materialism and therefore it denies the existence of non-material beings such as God. Some scientists hold that naturalism is a necessary condition of science. For example, Arthur Strahler, a geologist, said: “The naturalistic view is that the particular universe we observe came into existence and has operated through all time and in all its parts without the impetus or guidance of any supernatural agency. The naturalistic view is espoused by science as its fundamental assumption.”


What does this write-up suggest?   Look at the highted statement.  I shall reproduce this here again:

The time is ripe, then, to revisit the issue of naturalism. In this paper I focus on methodological naturalism with the goal of demonstrating why the scientific community should abandon it and replace it with a new methodological principle.

What do you make of the relationship between the two from the above write-up?

My view is this.  Many opponents of naturalism have argue that by adopting MN, the scientific community have grossly restrict the practice and flexibility of science, a view with which I agree.  That MN, being a core philosophy of science constrict science and cause some of the conflict between science and religion.  That if MN were replace by a better philosophy these conflicts and tension might reduce,  which I also agree with.  But have humans found a better philosophy to replace MN.

If MN "depended" on science (or independent of science), why would he be calling for its replacement?  It makes no sense.

It only makes sense if science is guided by (or relied on ) MN.  

I would like to see you opinion on this article.  It is a very good article, writen by someone who understands the field and million miles better than the work of Craig Rusbult.  Although I do not agree with some of his conclusion, I think he has laid out the facts on the subject very well indeed.

I have found this very good [url=http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/Default.aspx?TabId=68&id=10028&SkinSrc=%5BG%5DSkins%2F_default%2FNo+Skin&ContainerSrc=%5BG%5DContainers%2F_default%2FNo+Container] article critiquing MN [/url] (or here by, I think a Christian philosopher (Robert A. Delfino).  See how he formulates MN.

Unfortunately, one problem that complicates our task is that there is some division within both the scientific and philosophical communities on the topic of methodological naturalism. There are differences both in the terminology used and in the definitions put forth. There are also differences with respect to the role the principle plays in science and in the arguments that have been used to justify its use in science.

For example, with respect to terminology, Eugenie Scott, an anthropologist who works for the National Center for Science Education, calls the principle ‘methodological materialism.’15 In contrast, Nancy Murphy, a professor of Christian Philosophy, calls the principle ‘methodological atheism.’16 However, both of these terminological choices have disadvantages. In the case of Scott, the word ‘materialism’ might be misinterpreted by some as excluding electro-magnetic fields, space-time, and other things scientists discuss. In the case of Murphy, scientists would need to have a clear understanding of God in order to understand what ‘atheism’ meant. Unfortunately, there are many different philosophical and theological conceptions of God. Which one would scientists pick and why? To avoid all of these problems, I use the phrase ‘methodological naturalism’ exclusively throughout the paper.

Despite these terminological differences, Scott and Murphy agree on the general meaning of the principle. Scott explains it this way: “[S]cience acts as if the supernatural did not exist.”17 Murphy understands it to mean that “scientific explanations are to be in terms of natural (not supernatural) entities and processes.”18 They also agree that the use of the principle in science is legitimate despite being members of different disciplines (science and philosophy) and different religious persuasions (Scott is an atheist and Murphy is a Christian). To determine if they are correct we need to examine the role that the principle plays in science.

When we examine Scott’s view of methodological naturalism more closely we see that the prohibition against the supernatural is both a priori and necessary. It is a priori because she defines science this way: “By definition, science cannot consider supernatural explanations.”19 And it is necessary because any discipline that rejects the principle is not scientific as the following passage makes clear: “Defining science as an attempt to explain the natural world using natural processes and mechanisms allows us to say to creationists like Henry Morris that ‘God did it’ is not science.”20 I will demonstrate later on that her understanding of the principle is incompatible with a realist conception of science.

Not all scientists, however, agree with Scott. For example, Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of ecology and evolution who is not sympathetic to intelligent design, holds that methodological naturalism is provisional and a posteriori. It is a posteriori because it is arrived at due to lack evidence: “Since there is no evidence of any [G]od or supernatural design in the universe, the scientifically-informed conclusion has to be that there is none.”21 It is provisional because he claims “falsification of the naturalist paradigm is indeed possible.”22 In other words, if the naturalist paradigm were ever falsified science as a discipline would continue but without the principle of methodological naturalism. I will argue later on that we do not have to wait until the naturalist paradigm is falsified in order for scientists to abandon methodological naturalism. I will also argue that the correct scientific stance on the supernatural should be neutrality, not denial of existence—even if it is a provisional denial—as Pigliucci claims.23

There have also been related disagreements within the scientific community about God and the supernatural. For example, some scientists such as the late Stephen Jay Gould, a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, have argued that science and religion are completely separate. “Non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA) was the phrase he used.24 His point was that scientists, speaking as scientists, cannot comment on God and supernatural. In opposition to Gould, Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and an ardent atheist, has declared that “[T]he existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.”25

Clearly, the scientific community is not speaking with one voice to the public and this is not helpful to the ongoing cultural and legal battles concerning science and religion. Indeed, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was “a religious view … and not a scientific theory” because, among other reasons, Intelligent Design failed “to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations.”26 The requirement that science only use natural explanations is precisely the injunction of methodological naturalism. What we must determine is if the use of methodological naturalism in science is justified. Let us turn, then, to the task of evaluating the arguments that have been put forth for prohibiting the supernatural in science.


I think his formulation is consistent with the position I have taken.

I wonder what you understood by this statement?

No according to my diagram, only MN informs the Scientific Method (SM). The others are essentially metaphysical positions.

What I meant is this - of all the various flavours or shades of Naturalism, none but MN informs the Scientific Method. Humanistic Naturalism does not inform SM, Political Naturalism does not SM.

By metaphysical position, I mean a mental disposition arrived at as a result of the consideration of some other foundational data, particularly if the questions being address are questions of existence, being, morals, ethic, etc. For instance HN derives all its foundational data from the scientific method and then formulates a philosophy about how humans ought to live?

Sorry,  I have just re-read what may have mislead you.  It was a typo on my part.

MN is a pragmatic philosophy whose aims is to establish a framework and guideline by which good science may be conducted.  Does it answer all the shortcomings of science?  I submit, YES.

Does it have its own shortcomings and critics?  Absolutely YES.

I meant to say,  "Does it have all the shortcomings of science?  I submit, YES."

Let me state my position again:

1)  Is Methodological Naturalism a worldview/philosophy?   YES

2)  Is MN science?   NO

3)  Is MN the only philosophy and worldview?   NO

4)  Does MN supercede all other philosophies?  NO

5)  Has MN got flaws?  YES

6)  Is MN the guiding philosophy (principle, framework) behind science?  ABSOLUTELY YES

7)  Has science got flaws and shortcomings?  YES

8-)  Has science got a great and successful track record of uncovering the "truth" about the nature of reality?  YES

9)  Are there any other reliable epistemic methods besides science for revealing the truth? NO

10)  Could there be any other ways of knowing besides that provided by science?  ABSOLUTELY YES


If you are going to critique my position, I would appreciate it if you critique it vis-a-vis these 10 points above.  Unless I deviate from these 10 points (in which case I would advise you),  any criticisms outside of this would be a misrepresentation of my position.

pilgrim.1:
Lol, Theistic Evolution (IMHO) is not Intelligent Design, dear huxley. They are often closely link, in just the same way that MN and ON are linked. Unfortunately, not many people see the difference and that is why it has been wrongly appended by people who are too uncomfy with the ID. It is because of such disaffection for ID that many uninformed minds misinterprete the positions of scientists as Francis Collins. In my suggesting Theistic Evolution earlier, I noted that there are many other worldviews that appeal to science just as MN does; and that is why MN is not science but merely a philosophical doctrine that appeals to science. When you do not grasp this distinction, you will continue to blur the lines that naturalists have argued either way for the definition of MN. An example:

      On Methdological Naturalism,

      * Michael Martin & Pennock see the case as that science relies on MN

      * Barbara Forrest & Kurtz see the case as that MN relies on science

These are not the same thing, and yet they are all naturalists. Question now is that who is saying what? And if you assert that your take on it is just the best possible of all the others, that is just as dogmatic as the logic that has been critiqued and rejected already!

You argue as if science was a sick and wobbly tool before the emergence of MN. . . as if science did not have a proper foundation before the emergence of MN. I'm sorry to observe that this has been the recurrent decimal in all your rejoinders, and I do not see what case really you have made for it. We both agree that MN is not science, as well that it does not address all the queries of scientific research in the quest for truth and interpretations of world realities. But you still have a hard time seeing MN for what it is - and I think that so many naturalists are hooked on this problem so much so that they are still arguing among themselves on what basically is MN. Of course, people like Barbara Forrest may acknowledge the distinction (ala Kurtz); but that again is contradicted by other naturalists like Martin (after Pennock). It is this dogmatic and circular logic in MN that has led many philosophers of science to critique and reject it without arguing against the scientific method itself.

I agree ID is not theistic evolution (TE).  My state was badly worded.  In fact, I hesitated for several minutes thinking for a better way to express the relationship, but could not think of one.

The real relationship is amorphose.  There some ID'ers who also hold onto TE.  Michael Behe actually strandles both camps.  Francis Collins, Ken Miller,  Francisco Ayalla, Simon Conway Morris, Daniel Fairbanks etc are TE and they have nothing but contempt for ID "theory".

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

I sense that no matter how many times I point you to the real essence of MN, you still don't get it.

MN is a worldview and a philosophy - and there are so many worldviews and philosophies of science. But your problem is that you hold the assumption that MN supercedes all other philosophies - and that is where you are wrong. It won't hurt to see this fact, because you have not been able to show indeed that science relies on MN instead of the other way round. Other than trying to take the position of thinkers like Martin and Pennock, you should realise that even among naturalists there are others who see it the other way round!

Where have I said anything like what you have accused be off? Where? Have I even implied that? Show me where I have denied that MN is NOT a wordview and philosophy?

Have I denied that there are many worldviews and philosophies? Have I? Where? Have I even implied that?

Have I argued that MN supercede all other philosophies? Have I implied that? Where?

pilgrim.1:
I just gave you a basis why the above is the case. Reminder:

●   Karl Popper (1902- 1994)
     - generally credited with providing a context for major improvements
     in scientific method in the mid-to-late 20th century (note)

     - Karl Popper equated naturalism with inductive theory of science.
     He rejected it based on his general critique of induction,
     yet acknowledged its utility as means for inventing conjectures. (note)

    -  Karl Popper famously stated "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory,
     but a metaphysical research program." In the same paper, he continued,
     "And yet, the theory is invaluable. . ." (note)

●   Thomas Kuhn, (1922 - 1966)
     rejected the idea that there exists a single method that applies
     to all science and could account for its progress. In 1962 Kuhn
     published the influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
     which suggested that scientists worked in a series of paradigms,
     and argued that there was little evidence of scientists actually
     following a falsificationist methodology. ([url=http://]note[/url])

It would help to understand what science is, how it developed through history, its relation to philosophy, and the fact that it is not a worldview as is Methodological Naturalism, MN. Because science is not a worldview, it stands as a body of tools developed for investigating and understanding world realities; and it should not be confused for MN - that is the reason why philosophers of science who have made very important contributions have critiqued and rejected its dogmatic logic.

Thanks for your post.

MN is a pragmatic philosophy whose aims is to establish a framework and guideline by which good science may be conducted.  Does it answer have all the shortcomings of science?  I submit, YES.

Does it have its own shortcomings and critics?  Absolutely YES.

Now, are there any schools of philosophies that are universally accepted by all philosophers?  Absolutely NO.

Even in the philosophy of science, there are no less that 5 different schools of thought. And advocates of these fields debate fiercely over what and how science should be conducted.

Have the debates and controversies stop science from progressing and producing great results?  I doubt it.

Karl Popper formalised the concept of falsification which has been widely accepted by the scientific community.  But do all philosopher of science agree on the concept of falsification?  No,  I see your are familiar with names like Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerbend, etc.

The fact that falsification has its critic impede the progress of science?  I doubt it.  Falsification is a pragmatic philosophy that guides the conduct of science and almost all science adhere to this philosophy.

Popper my have been a good and influential philosopher but this does not mean he was infallible.  He notoriously described Darwinian Evolution as not been science because he thought it could not be falsified.  For a man of his statue, in the 20th century, to not realised just how easy it is to falsify Darwinian Evolution, just shows that some great men too can be in error.  Of course, once it was pointed out to him how evolution could he falsified, he withdrew his criticism.

Interesting how Popper criticised MN in one tone, but "acknowledged its utility as means for inventing conjectures":

Karl Popper equated naturalism with inductive theory of science. He rejected it based on his general critique of induction (see problem of induction), yet acknowledged its utility as means for inventing conjectures.

Did he suggest a better approach?  Well, not that I am aware of.  If you are aware of a better approach, I would like to know.

Is it possible to develop a better philosophical approach to conducting science?  Absolutely YES.

Is there such an approach at the moment with a track record of success as MN?  NO.

I asked you for any "scientific" work that is currently conducted under non-MN principles and you rightly said Intellegent Design work, sometimes under the theme of Theistic Evolution.  Supports of ID have had their day in court in 2005 to defend their views and the were rightly kicked out of court as peddling pseudo-science.  In fact, you may want to watch transcripts of the trial.  Fascinating.  The Catholic scientist, Kenneth Miller, who defends MN, testified against ID'ers.

I am not aware of any real serious practising scientist who would conduct science under non-MN principles.  If you do, I would like to know who they are and what they do.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Okay, at last we're getting somewhere. I couldn't have said it any better: "It is a worldview informed by science". That said, I should not be tedious on the subject any further, other than a comment that it does not appear that Naturalism is of recent date - I think it predates the 19th century (depending on how one interpretest its early philosophical developments) - but there again, I may be equally wrong.

Do have a great evening.

I have never denied that Natural was a worldview informed by science. What I was saying was that MN, in its present capacity is the guiding principle behind science. And those were my exact comments that sparked off this discussion.

You are right about its very early beginnings. But most naturalists today would only defend the type of naturalist that follows on from the successful track record of the Scientific Method. That is the type I also defend.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Oh no, huxley. . . look again at that diagram and see where the arrow points between the scientific method and methodological naturalism - it is wrong, because it projects the idea that science relies on or appeals to MN instead of the other way round. This flaw is the reason why you have been postulating the idea that MN informs science - this is not a healthy claim, because ALL OTHER branches of naturalism inform the scientific method as well!

No according to my diagram, only MN informs the Scientific Method (SM).  The others are essentially metaphysical positions.

I am tired of asking, but I shall try again.  Can you show me philosophers of science and scientist who deny that science is guided by MN principles?  I would really like to know what their views are.

I think, in a kind of round-about way,  you are right because the arrows in my diagram  define a complete loop.  Naturalism, is a relatively newish philosophy, as it did not exist before the 19th century.  It developed by draw from the scientific method (SM) and through the successes of the SM it was possible to define a set of protocol and framework by which science might be conducted.  Such a protocol is MN.  Should it become necessary to add supernaturalism into the loop, I am sure the protocol would be revised.

I don't deny that Naturalism is a worldview. It is a worldview informed by science.  It is NOT science by itself.

pilgrim.1:
Dear huxley,

don't you see what I have been saying all along? Naturalism is a worldview - slice it anyhow one wishes with all its adjectives, it is not science and only appeals to the natural sciences. Even when you look at Mimi Marinucci's quote above, what does he say? Here again:[list]Epistemological or methodological naturalism is a claim about how we ought to investigate the world. Briefly, it is the belief that how we should engage in epistemic and scientific pursuits depends on how we actually can and do reason given our perceptual and cognitive faculties.[/list]

MN does not make a preserve on science - at best, it is a claim among many other claims. It is because many people do not see this distinctives that make a lot of philosophers of science to reject naturalistic logic. An example? Karl Popper -

[list](1) Karl Popper equated naturalism with inductive theory of science. He rejected it based on his general critique of induction (see problem of induction), yet acknowledged its utility as means for inventing conjectures.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) [/list]

Who is saying naturalism is science? Is this what you think I am saying? MN is a framework and protocol that informs science. Basically, it defined a way of proceeding, thinking and approaching scientific investigations. IT IS NOT SCIENCE. And I have never said it is science.

This is how I envisage the relationship:

Thanks for the latest post, but you have not shown why MN is not the guiding principle for science.  Almost all philosopher of science and practicing scientist (theistic and nontheistic)  adopt that approach when practising science.   This is the position of a theistic philosopher of science (Mimi Marinucci) :

Although naturalisms abound, the most significant distinction, which naturalists themselves do not always acknowledge, is between epistemological and metaphysical naturalism. We might also refer to this same distinction in terms of methodological and ontological naturalism. Epistemological or methodological naturalism is a claim about how we ought to investigate the world. Briefly, it is the belief that how we should engage in epistemic and scientific pursuits depends on how we actually can and do reason given our perceptual and cognitive faculties. In contrast, metaphysical or ontological naturalism is focused less on the human condition and more on the world itself. It is not merely a claim about how we know but also a claim about what there is to know. According to this version of naturalism, the world is comprised of, and only of, empirically knowable physical phenomena

I found this as well on this site;

Methodological naturalism combined with supernaturalism is perhaps the most popular metaphysical position in the United States today. All theistic scientists adopt such methodological naturalism, as well as the 40-50% of the U.S. population who accept science and evolution but believe in God, the view known as "theistic evolution" (all of these individuals would be metaphysical supernaturalists as well as methodological naturalists). Of the others in the population, 40% believe in supernatural creationism and God (all are both metaphysical and methodological supernaturalists), and the remaining 10-15%, including probably most scientists and philosophers, are nontheist believers in science and evolution (so are all metaphysical naturalists). Therefore, no more than 15% of Americans sincerely believe in ontological naturalism; 85-90% are ontological supernaturalists with about half of these being methodological naturalists when it suits them.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

I know what you actually said; but while not dragging you back, I think your reaction to the closed mindset answers well to the fact that you had misunderstood him. I have consequently discussed how that is so; and if you did not initially give me grounds to believe that you were adopting such a mindset, you would not have initially been too hasty to dismiss him as a retard, would you?

Take heart, I don't mean to. One thing you will find consistent about me is that when a discussion begins to get unreasonable, I simply fold myself away from the thread until such occasion as invites my inputs consequently. However, when that would not solve the problem for my fellow discussants, I take umbrage at their incessant malignant attitude - which is why I wonder that you would be complaining about this if indeed you didn't mind being malignant after I left one such discussion peacefully.

Grateful for your explanations, but you didn't quite bring about anything substantial in the views already shared in mine. First, Barbara agrees with Kurtz that modern naturalism is reliant upon science, not the other way round - she didn't argue for what you again are emphasizing as highlighted in your quoted.

Second, no matter how one may slice it, the basic premise of MN (Methodological Naturalism) simply remains as I have defined earlier:

● naturalism ((philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood
in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations)

● Naturalism is a worldview that assumes that the universe is
a closed system in which matter and energy are the only realities.

Now, if MN differs from this simply definitions, please kindly show - and help to outline also how it differs substantially from the fact that it is a philosophical worldview seeking to interprete the realities of the world without recourse to supernatural explanations. Whether it is held simply as Naturalism, I don't see what essentially you have said that changes one shade of the meanings and pointers already offered in mine - not even when one looks at "strong" or "weak" naturalism, they both still carry the same thing.

What is essentially different from Francis Collins as a scientist who is not an MN - even when he does his job as a scientist? Even when the equation of favouring ID is left out, does that essentially change anything in the fact that he does not adhere to the MN position? The basic thing you are missing here is that you're too keen to force science to bend to MN ("Basically, science relies on MN as it guiding principle" when we know that is not true and just quite the opposite.

Dear huxley, Methodological Naturalism is a worldview based on the philosophical doctrine that assumes and presumes to interprete the world in naturalistic terms. It is not science, but appeals to science; therefore, it is wrong and indeed a huge fallacy to presume that science relies on MN.

That is why, no matter how many such scientists I refer to, I presume that your first premise is to look out for what worldview they hold, and not what science they do! I said it is a presumption; and if you keep holding the false view of "science relying on MN", your case cannot then be helped. As soon as you sort this issue ouut and point me to unbiased reference where the definition of MN in mine differs scholarly from what unbiased scientists understand in this scheme, then I shall give you a good list of some scientists who do not adhere to the worldview of MN when conducting their researches.

Good to know.

Cheers.

In fact, I think I start this discussion by stating that MN "is one of the guiding philosophies of science". To use the use "rely" is a bit misleading and I should never have in my later post. Although I know some defended of MN use the word relies, I think it is a bit too loose and may trip the unwary.


If you look at the line diagram I made;

Naturalism
|
|
MN < ----------- Scientific method <----------- PN

MN < ----------- Scientific Method <-------- strong----------- (ON)


I had Naturalism at the top (I should really have put a line linking it to the scientific method). When Barbara Forrest user the term "modern naturalist" as in the below;

Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are distinguished by the fact that methodological naturalism is an epistemology as well as a procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position. Although there is variation in the views of modern naturalists, Kurtz's definition captures these two most important aspects of modern naturalism: (1) the reliance on scientific method, grounded in empiricism, as the only reliable method of acquiring knowledge about the natural world, and (2) the inadmissibility of the supernatural or transcendent into its metaphysical scheme.[5] Kurtz's current definition is consistent with Sidney Hook's earlier one:

She id refering to the Naturalism at the top of my diagram. However MN is an "epistemological and procedural protocol". Basically, it defines and specifies a way of thinking and doing.


Now, check out this review that I found online, I think from a Christian scholar. I think he sets out the distinction quite well:

Contemporary epistemologists and philosophers of science invoke the term naturalism frequently enough that it is worth pausing to take inventory of the various kinds of views to which this label is applied. Mine is by no means the first effort of this sort. In fact, I take Kitcher*s *The Naturalists Return* as a starting point for my analysis. The naturalists have indeed returned, but often enough the welcoming party has been less than cordial. My task is to sort through the central arguments for and against naturalism in order to determine which, if any, forms of naturalism are viable.

Although naturalisms abound, the most significant distinction, which naturalists themselves do not always acknowledge, is between epistemological and metaphysical naturalism. We might also refer to this same distinction in terms of methodological and ontological naturalism. Epistemological or methodological naturalism is a claim about how we ought to investigate the world. Briefly, it is the belief that how we should engage in epistemic and scientific pursuits depends on how we actually can and do reason given our perceptual and cognitive faculties. In contrast, metaphysical or ontological naturalism is focused less on the human condition and more on the world itself. It is not merely a claim about how we know but also a claim about what there is to know. According to this version of naturalism, the world is comprised of, and only of, empirically knowable physical phenomena.

The best arguments against naturalism attack the metaphysical or ontological thesis and do little to undermine epistemological or methodological naturalism. However, both naturalists and their critics occasionally overlook this distinction. Since the relationship between epistemological and metaphysical naturalism is neither obvious nor necessary, a good argument against either version does not refute the other. I therefore argue that we should abandon the dogmatic assumption to which both naturalists and their critics silently adhere. I then argue in favor epistemological or methodological naturalism and explain why I am agnostic regarding metaphysical or ontological naturalism.


If Francis Collins is not a MNlist while he is doing his scientific work, what else is he then? Do you suppose in his job is makes allowance for supernatural explanations?

Take a look at this video.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,
You got it all wrong, huxley. If you can learn to reason without adopting  closed mindset just because you're an atheist, you will then be able to read people better.

How could you say I adopt a closed mindset when I expressed my willingness to see Rusbult demonstrate other approach?  Have you got a problem with that attitude?   This is what I actually said:

First, I would be glad to see Dr Rusbult demonstrate a better epistemological procedure to unveiling the nature of reality. A method better than the scientific method, with greater reliability and success that the scientific method, if he thinks the scientific method is inadequate.

Is is really frustrating having a discussion when you keep impugning my character unfairly.

pilgrim.1:
Dr. Rusbult is not a "retard" as you alleged initially - that was just too silly and hasty to infer before having read through his dissertation. In brief, he does not argue against the "scientific method", but rather critiquing the doctrine of MN - Methodological Naturalism! When [url=http://Is it scientific?]he asked[/url], "Is it scientific", of course we know at once from his discussion that he was not arguing against the 'scientific method', but rather making a critique on the fact that 'science is typically closed by methodological naturalism'. Did you not see where he categorically mentioned also that -

         I think methodological naturalism is theologically acceptable for a Christian -
         so the main questions in this page are about our definitions of
         ● science,
         ● logic, and
         ● utility,
         by asking (about methodological naturalism) "Is it scientific?  Is it logical?
         Is it useful?  Is it a rule?"  (reminder here)

I assume that many people just adopt a "theist vs atheist" posture when they read issues, and that is why they often miss the details that are so clearly in print. No, huxley, you missed the point by a thousand miles! Dr. Craig was not dissing science or the scientific method - rather, he was asking germane questions about the posture and veracity of Methodological Naturalism to interpretating the world.

If you care for the real gist of his proposal on scientific education, please see:

             A Model of "Integrated Scientific Method" and
              its Application for the Analysis of Instruction
                 a dissertation submitted by Craig Rusbult
             for a PhD degree in Curriculum and Instruction
                   at the Univsersity of Wisconsin-Madison,
                                     March 14, 1997

The other argument on MN are a brief introduction on --  Methodological Naturalism in Our Search for Truth

I don't think I have missed anything, huxley. Michael Martin was comparing MN with ON in the webpage where he quoted Pennock; but on a broader scheme of reference, taken as a worldview MN is known to have certain flaws and as such is even a weaker posture in reference to interpreting the realities of our world. I apologise if you misread me on that; but my thoughts perhaps were running ahead of my fingers on the keyboard - which does not excuse the fact that I already mentioned Dr. Craig and Alvin Plantinga as critiquing MN and astutely showing its flaws.

I was going to reason with you, huxley - but I find it tedious trying to maintain coherence with such attititudes of skeptics who feel at liberty to address scholars as retards! You notice I didn't react to your initially outburst on defining Naturalism - but when you came back constantly making such reactions a norm, I thought that "jibe" should call you back and offer you the choice of how well you want to lay out your submissions. What you propose for others that you can't contain should be withdrawn with all due respect. On that note, my apologies - but then again, I don't tolerate such attitudes and would better leave off a discussion (as I often say, "fold myself away" when passions become more projected than the substance of a thread.

Cheers.

I don't think you have got to grips the distinctions yet.  You have the following:

1-Naturalism (N)
2-Ontological naturalism (ON)
3-Methodological naturalism (MN)
4-Metaphysical or Philosophical naturalism (PN)

Now all 4 come under the unbrella of Naturalism and sometimes naturalists may use simply naturalism to describe their position in general discussion.  But where precision is required, then these various adjective are used to make subtle distinction between the various positions.  Let me draw a line chart to make the distinction.


                                                                        N

                              MN  < ----------- Scientific method  <-----------  PN

                              MN  < ----------- Scientific Method <-------- strong----------- (ON)                       


Basically, science relies on MN as it guiding principle.  PN is founded on scientific method.  This is basically what Barbara Forrest is saying in the article.


On the question about DR Francis Collins,  I asked whether you were familiar with any scientist who was NOT a MNlist in the pursuit of their scientific career.    For instance,  if they were trying to solve a difficult scientific question and could not find a solution would attribute that to God, as in "I don't know how that works - God did it". Do you know any scientist (apart from ID advocates) who adopt that approach when doing science.

Collins was not a MNlist while doing his day job as head of the Genome project.  I have read his book and the bits about science is very good and fascinating.  But when he starts talking about how he postulates goods intervenes in guiding evolution, it all breaks down.  In fact, I even posted a video link of one of his lectures here some months back.  Very good lecture, I might add.  I shall find the link.

Upon being question by a member of the audience about how he reconciles his supernaturalism with MN,  he said "That is a personal thing for everyone".   Believe me,  that is the best answer he had.  Now, how objective is that.

I have also read Kenneth Miller and am a GREAT "fan" of his.  Honestly,  I like this guy.  I bought four copies of his book, Finding Darwin's God,, which I gave out to friends&family.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,
Leaving the irrational slobbers aside, just so you are aware that I have tried (before even this thread was raised) to examine this issue of Methodological Naturalism. Please pardon me for a moment, and let me once again show you a basic premise in my inputs. It is not my appraoch to be prejudiced against anybody - even when I may not agree with them, I should have the decency of respecting their credentials. It is no joke for someone to have gained a Ph.D after submissting a dissertation, and then others who have no clue what they have established in academia will then sit down and try to slobber them, just because they happen to be theists (or Christians in particular)! That attitude is not a healthy posture for any good student of rational thought or philosophically balanced thinking.

First, I would be glad to see Dr Rusbult demonstrate a better epistemological procedure to unveiling the nature of reality. A method better than the scientific method, with greater reliability and success that the scientific method, if he thinks the scientific method is inadequate.

Did he do that in his PhD work?

pilgrim.1:
That said, here are a few things that were harvested long ago during my research on the meaning of Methodological Naturalism, taken from the same Infidel.Org website (here):

[list]Justifying Methodological Naturalism (2002)

Michael Martin

In his recent book Tower of Babel Robert T. Pennock argues against the New Creationists for failing to realize that science is committed to Methodological Naturalism (MN) and not Ontological Naturalism (ON). Roughly speaking ON is the view that only natural processes or events exist. It maintains that insofar as God, angels, the Devil, ghosts, and other such entities are supernatural, they do not exist. MN is a much weaker position. It does not deny the existence of supernatural entities per se. It simply assumes for the purpose of inquiry that they do not exist. It goes on the assumption that in the context of inquiry only natural processes and events exist.[/list]

Now, a few things tessellate with what I offered earlier.

● First, I was quite clear that Naturalism is sliced into various shades of worldviews -
and in this case again, we see Ontological Naturalism as distinct from Methodological.

● Again, as in the above, we note that Methodological Naturalism (MN) is admitted to
be a weaker position in Naturalism, in contrast to the postulations of Ontological.

● The difference in them both is that one emphatically declares that the supernatural
just does not exist - the other (MN) does not deny the existence of the supernatural
per se, but only assumes that denial for the sake of its enquiries.

● Another thing which I pointed out is that MN is a worldview, and in the broader scheme
of enquiry, is infact a doctrine based on assumed philosophical reasoning. As such, most
philosophers do not identify themselves as adherents of MN, since there is no denying
the fact that it is a worldview! This does not mean that scientists engage in science just
about anyhow without a methodology - but what you have been missing all along was
that you were pushing the agenda of that worldview and making science bend to it!

● Now, Michael Martin quotes Pennock on a popular misconception among ontologists, viz -
'that science is committed to Methodological Naturalism'! Please understand
that such an assertion is misplaced and blurs the thinking of many - for it is the other way
round, that MN appeals to natural sciences, rather than science being "commited to"
MN! Those who argue flatly on the idea of making science bend to MN are actually making
an argument for ON - Ontological Naturalism, rather than for MN!

This was why I kept on pointing you again and again to go and sort this issue out and get a good grasp of MN! You don't just come on board and slobber people just about anyhow when you lack a good grasp of the subject yourself - nevermind that even those at Infidel.Org cannot deny that MN is a worldview! It is for this reason that you have refused to see reason that I often simply leave you out in most discussions, but quite often is the case that you make assertions that you immediately abandon when they are pointed out.

I think you totally missed the mark here. Read that comment again of Michael Martin's. Here is it:

In his recent book Tower of Babel Robert T. Pennock argues against the New Creationists for failing to realize that science is committed to Methodological Naturalism (MN) and not Ontological Naturalism (ON). Roughly speaking ON is the view that only natural processes or events exist. It maintains that insofar as God, angels, the Devil, ghosts, and other such entities are supernatural, they do not exist. MN is a much weaker position. It does not deny the existence of supernatural entities per se. It simply assumes for the purpose of inquiry that they do not exist. It goes on the assumption that in the context of inquiry only natural processes and events exist.[/list]

What do you thick the comparative adjective refers to? What is he comparing here? I submit, he is comparing MN to ON.

ON makes very strong claims, viz that supernatural entities do not exist. On the other hand MN is not concerned about the existence of these entity - it simple presumes their non-existence.

This does not, by any means, an admission that MN is a weak philosophy. It just means that its position with respect to ON is one of softer claim;

ON --> There are no supernatural entities.
MN --> I don't care if there are supernatural entities.



By the way, I tend to ignore all you charges of hypocrisy, calling me a joke, etc, etc. I just like to concentrate on the facts of the arguments. I wrongly thought that good Christians were beyond such jibes.

Pilgrim,

What is the definition of MN you think I hold? If you had read the paper by Barbara Forrest you would see the positions defended by most scientist and philosophers of science. That document is very well reference. I shall cut& paste only a snippet of interesting parts;

Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are distinguished by the fact that methodological naturalism is an epistemology as well as a procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position. Although there is variation in the views of modern naturalists, Kurtz's definition captures these two most important aspects of modern naturalism: (1) the reliance on scientific method, grounded in empiricism, as the only reliable method of acquiring knowledge about the natural world, and (2) the inadmissibility of the supernatural or transcendent into its metaphysical scheme.[5] Kurtz's current definition is consistent with Sidney Hook's earlier one:

Since methodological and philosophical naturalism are founded upon the methods and findings, respectively, of modern science, philosophical naturalism is bound to take into account the views of scientists. As Hilary Kornblith asserts, "Philosophers must be , modest , and attempt to construct philosophical theories which are scientifically well informed."


In fact, you are best reading the document to do any justice to it.

I have lost track on where we are at variance. Can you explain to me where we disagree? Is a matter of semantics?


Once you have done that, could you try these questions again as I see you are in the habit of avoiding them?

1) Name one or more serious scientists who are NOT methodological naturalists in the pursuance of their science.

2) Name any contemporary theories or principles founded on supernaturalism.

3) Name the fruits of supernatural theories/principles.


I predict you have got no answers, BUT I would like to be proven wrong.